J since a man is often represented as transacting human affairs with his understanding, mind, will, reason, fancy, or conscience, in a personal manner?" "With respect to the term person, since neither scripture itself applies it to the Word or Spirit, nor the elder nor later writers of the church have confined themselves to the use of this term, I can see no necessity of the confinement of ourselves or others to it, when we are speaking of the pure distinctions in the Divine nature. And when we are endeavouring to explain them in a rational manner, and to form and adjust our clearest ideas of them, I think we may use the term, divine properties, or rather divine powers, for this end. Perhaps this word, powers, comes nearest to the genuine ideas of things, so far as we can apply human words to divine ideas, and this word, powers, makes the distinction greater than properties, and I think it is so much the better. But we have several precedents for the use of both these terins among the ancient writers." "The divine Logos seems to be represented, both in scripture and in the primitive writers, as much distinct from the Father as the same essence admits of, or as distinct as may be, without being another conscious mind. Now this seems to be something more than a mere attribute; and therefore I call the Logos a divine power; imitating herein both the ancient Jews and the primitive fathers, who call him frequently, Zopia and Nous, and Auraic e8, and particularly Clemens Alexandrinus, who makes him Пarp τις ενέργεια. But since God and his co-essential Word do not seem to have two distinct consciousnesses, or to be two conscious minds; this eternal Logos can hardly be called a person, in the common and literal sense of the term, as a distinct man or angel, but only in figurative and metaphorical language." The Spirit seems to be another divine power, which may be called the power of efficience; and although it is sometimes described in scripture as a personal agent, after the manner of Jewish and eastern writers, yet if we put all the scriptures relating to this subject together, and view them in a correspondent light, the Spirit of God does not seem to be described as a distinct Spirit from the Father, or as another conscious mind, but as an eternal, essential power, belonging to the Father, whereby all things are effected." "Thus it appears, that, as outward speech and breath are powers of the human body, as reason and vital activity or efficience are powers of the human soul, so the great God in scripture has revealed himself to us as a glorious Being, who has two eternal, essential, divine powers, which, in condescension to our weakness, he is pleased to describe by way of analogy to our souls and bodies; and this he doth by the terms Aoyos and Пvεvμa in Greek, and in English, Word and Spirit.", Thus we see that, in the judgment of this great man, the Word and Spirit are not properly to be regarded as persons, but rather as powers belonging to the Divine nature. The way in which he explains and illustrates this point, is highly interesting and instructive, nor could a Unitarian wish to see his own characteristic opinions more justly stated. Yet we should hesitate to say that at this time Watts was a Unitarian; for though we have seen that he had the root of the matter in him, yet he had not as yet put forth the characteristic branches. At this time he held the strange opinion that the human soul of Christ pre-existed, and was employed by God in the creation of the world, and he likewise approved of the religious worship of Christ as the Mediator, with other inconsistencies, which we have good reason to believe he afterwards abandoned. Nothing can be plainer than that the doctrine contained in the foregoing extracts, cuts at the very root of every branch of the Trinitarian scheme and worship, and must, if admitted, bring the whole of that luxuriant growth defenceless to the ground. EUELPIS. P.S. Allow me particularly to recommend that work of Watts's from which I have made the above extracts, to the attention of your readers. It is fraught with learning and interesting remarks. SIR, HERE greater Timor are few subjects of racer ests of the Dissenting body, than the Deeds of Trust by which their several places of worship are held. Few subjects are, however, less understood, or less inquired into. In fact, the usual course has been to confide the preparation of the instrument to an attorney, as a piece of routine; and, it being once "signed, sealed and delivered" in due legal form, to consign it to the custody of some faithful Trustee, there to abide in undisturbed seclusion until his death imposes on his heirs the task of searching among his papers; and it has been brought again to light just in time to be renewed, before the last of those who were invested with the power of renewing it had followed his brethren to the grave↓ As a mere security for the tenure of our chapels, then, it is highly important that this subject should be looked into; but in another view it appears to me of no less importance, and I am anxious to draw the attention of Unitarian Dissenters in this direction at the present moment, because the increase of their numbers is multiply ing the number of congregations in various parts of the kingdom; and new buildings are consequently rising up for their accommodation. Hitherto a great error has been committed, by confounding in the same instrument the tenure in the building and the constitution of the Society as sembling therein. Where the building is held in trust for the Society, this is sufficiently objectionable; because a power is conferred on the Trustees, which is in a great measure permanent and irresponsible; and frequently interferes with the free exercise of their judgment by the Society at large, with respect to such concerns as should be altogether subject to their regulation or choice. But where the building is the property of individuals, whether they form a part of the congregation or not, the objections become infinitely more formidable; inasmuch as differences may arise which the jealousy, so easily excited between interests obviously separate, and probably supposed to be at vari ance, will render it difficult or impossible to reconcile. a public worship. Is it not that the members, being agreed in their “mode of faith," consider it for their mutual convenience and improvement to assemble together under the guidance of a common pastor? This argues no necessary connexion with a particular edifiee. They may assemble on the high-ways, as the first Christians did; they may use one building this year, and another the next. But a constitution-fixed principles for the regulation of their concerns, and acknowledged by all the members-is essentially necessary to the well-being of every Society; and no religious Society should exist, nor indeed can be said to exist as a Society, without it. It will not, however, be questioned, that a building set apart for the use of such a body must greatly contribute to their comfort and convenience; that, in other words, it may be subservient to the object for which the Society was formed. It is therefore highly desirable, that every such Society should enjoy the benefit, when it can be obtained without sacrificing superior considerations. But if some of the Trust Deeds are examined, it will be found that this secondary object, this matter of convenience, has assumed the place of the first; that the affairs of religion, as a congregational concern, are absolutely sup planted by an anxiety that the property in the building shall not be alienated. Thus, in one place, the choice of the minister is altogether in the hands of the Trustees; in another, the members of the congregation are not permitted to exercise a choice until the proprietors have agreed to recommend, and other restrictions are devised, by which some or all of the congregation are prohibited from enjoying any substantial right of membership beyond those of attending public worship, and, contributing towards its support. To say nothing at the present moment of the prejudicial effects which must ensue from such a system as this, on the zeal, or, when any cause for excitement occurs, on the temper of the parties, whether they retain or are excluded from immediate influence in their general concerns, I would ask, what can be more hostile to the principles of dissent? What is it but another version of the mode in which clerical appointments in the Established Church are filled? In the latter, indeed, the power is often lodged in the hands of individuals, or of bodies, who have no other connexion with the people immediately interested; and perhaps some cases as extravagant may be found amongst ourselves; but as far as relates to those members of the congregation, be their numbers greater or less, who have no voice in the election of their minister, the principle is one and the same. To them it can make no difference by whom the appointment was made they had no share in it; and if they deem it a duty to attend public worship, they are subject to precisely the same inconvenience as the unpretending followers of the hierarchy. But it is contended that this system is necessary to secure the property in the chapel for the use of Unitarian worshipers and from the invasion of interlopers of every description. If no other means can be pointed out by which this object may be fully accomplished, and which are at the same time altogether free from the objections which so decidedly apply to these, it may be admitted that there is something in the argument. But if it can be shewn that other means are within our reach, and only require to be called into operation, it must, on the other hand, be acknowledged, that among Dissenters, rational Dissenters, who, claiming for themselves the utmost freedom and independence of judgment, owe it to their own consistency neither to withhold nor to interfere with the right of others to exercise the like freedom and independence, it must, I say, be acknowledged, that every restraint on the individual rights of the members of a congregation, and more especially on that most important right, a voice in the election of the pastor, ought instantly to be removed. Let us then proceed in our inquiry. I have already said that the constitution of the Society and the tenure in the chapel ought not to be confounded. In fact, the occupation of the chapel should be a matter of separate agreement between the heads or delegates of the congregation on the one hand, and the trustees or proprietors of the building on the other. Where the building is private property, the terms will require an annual rent for the chapel entire, or for pews separately; where it is held in trust for a particular class of worshipers, it may be lent to people of that class in consideration of their keeping the premises in repair, or of their paying a sum equivalent to the repairs; and in either case, other conditions may be prescribed as to the duration of the occupancy;-it may be for a year, for two years, or while certain doctrines are taught therein. In short, this species of arrangement is susceptible of every security that can be obtained by any other; and I am not aware of any disadvantage which can possibly result from it. It is true, difficulties may in some cases present themselves in the terms in which certain clauses of old Trust Deeds are expressed; but I suspect that, the spirit being willing, other difficulties of the same nature, and quite equal in magnitude, have in many instances been surmounted; and I am confident that a willing spirit would not fail to remove such as we now contemplate the possible or probable existence of. But be this as it may; the argument has no force in relation to those chapels which are now building, or which may hereafter be built. I am fully aware, Sir, that the principle which I contend for will meet with objectors; for old habits and old prejudices do not like to be disturbed; but I do not think it necessary to anticipate what may hereafter be advanced; I am satisfied with this endeavour to place the subject in a clear point of view, in the hope of leading to a further discussion. Title: “Summer. A Poem. By James Thomson. "Jam clarus occultum Andromeda Pater Ostendit ignem. Jam Procyon furit Et stella vesani Leonis, Sole dies referente siccos. "Jam pastor umbras cum grege languido, "London: Printed for J. Millan, at Locke's-Head in New Street, near the upper End of the Haymarket. MDCCXXVII." A Dedication follows, "to the Right Hon. Mr. Dodington, one of the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, &c." The poet, lately arrived from his native Scotland, at the great British mart of talents, had dedicated Winter, in 1726, to Sir Spencer Compton, from whom, according to Johnson, some verses which censured the great for their neglect of * Carm. L. iii. Od. xxix. thus translated by Francis : "Andromeda's conspicuous sire Now darts his hidden beams from The Lion shews his madn'ing fire, And barks fierce Procyon's raging While Phoebus, with revolving ray, "Fainting beneath the swelt'ring heat, the waves." ingenious men," at length procured "a present of twenty guineas," in acknowledgment of the poet's compliment. 66 In those days a poem was no sooner finished than policy was engaged to select a patron. Johnson relates that Thomson, having been some time entertained in the family of Lord Binning, was desirous of testifying his gratitude by making him the patron of his Summer; but the same kindness which had first disposed Lord Binning to encourage him, determined him to refuse the Dedication, which was by his advice addressed to Mr. Dodington, a man who had more power to advance the reputation and fortune of a poet." Thomson, though he declines "to run into the common track of dedicators, and attempt a panegyric," and though he is aware of "a certain generous delicacy in men of the most distinguished merit, disposing them to avoid those praises they so powerfully attract," yet ventures to publish the discovery he has made, that his patron possesses "a character, in which the VIRTUES, the GRACES and the MUSES join their influence ;" and that his "example has recommended Poetry, with the greatest grace-an art," he adds, "in which you are a master,-one of the finest, and consequently one of the most indulgent, judges of the age ;" worthy to be transmitted to future times as the BRITISH MÆCENAS." In 1730, on the publication of the Seasons, in a connected form, this prose adulation was commuted, as it has been in all succeeding editions, for eleven lines of flattery in verse, imputing to the patron, among other high qualities, "Unblemish'd honour; and an active zeal For Britain's glory, liberty and man.” Such was the Dodington of a grateful, or rather an expectant Bard, who predicts in his Dedication, as to the many virtues" of his patron, that "posterity alone will do them justice." Instructed by that invalua ble dissection of a court, "The Diary of the late George Bubb Dodington, Baron of Melcombe Regis," posterity has done, and will continue to do him justice, not imputing to him, with his poet, "unblemished honour," &c., but rather allowing his claim to that bad eminence" on which he has placed himself, among the corrupt courtiers and place-hunters of his day. "The people," says Dr. Knox, (Spirit of Despotism, 1795, Sect. xx. p. 170,) "have been called, not only venal wretches," (as "the elec tors of Bridgewater" were described by Lord Melcombe,) "but the swinish multitude. Long and tiresome books have been written to run down the people, as destitute of virtue, principle, of every thing honest and honourable, and that can give them any right to interfere with the grand mysteries of a cabinet. But he who reads and considers duly the very striking anecdotes and conversations in Lord Melcombe's Diary, will see, that, in order to find venality in its full growth, and survey sordidness in its complete state of abomination, it will be necessary to turn from low to high life. — This Bubb Dodington, after selling himself, betraying the prince, and offering his six members to the best bidder, was made a Lord. He was created Baron of Melcombe Regis, as a reward for such prostitution of principles as ought to have caused him to be branded in the forehead with a mark of indelible infamy. "Such men," concludes Dr. Knox, "hate the people. They love nothing but themselves, the emoluments of places, the distinction of titles, and the pomp and vanity of the courts in which they flatter and are flattered. They will ever wish for a military government to awe the saucy crowd, and keep them from intruding on their own sacred privileges and persons. The Herculean hand of a virtuous people can alone cleanse the Augean stable of a corrupted court formed of miscreant toad-eaters like Lord Melcombe." In this first publication of Summer, it extended only to 1148 lines. In 1730 it was increased to 1205; and in the later editions it has reached to 1804 lines. I shall proceed to notice the principal variations and additions. Instead of the lines now read, 38 -42, the Planets were described in 1727 and 1730 as "Unresting, changeless, matchless, in their Course; To Day, and Night, and the delightful Of Seasons, faithful; not excentric once; So pois'd and perfect is the vast Machine !" For lines 112-140 were the following, in 1727, all, except the two first, quite different from what now appear: Parent of Seasons! from whose rich"The vegetable World is also thine, stain'd Rays, Reflected various, various Colours rise: The freshening Mantle of the youthful Year; The wild Embroidery of the watʼry Vale; With all that chears the Eye, and charms the Heart. |